lew (04/04/83)
As part of a recent binge of reading on evolution, I read a short book about the natural philosophy of Georges Cuvier (1769-1832). Cuvier is a key figure in the emergence of modern paleontology. He founded the method of comparative anatomy and made his reputation partly by classifying mammalian fossils, particularly the mammoths and mastodons. Cuvier believed strongly in the fixity of species. His guiding principles were "the correlation of parts" and "the subordination of characters", both of which followed from "the conditions of existence". This corresponds roughly with "the argument from design". Nature has a grand and perfect plan and the program of zoology should be to understand it to the extent that reason allows. This makes him a natural as a creationist hero, particularly since he was strongly religious (he was Lutheran.) However, today's doctrine of creationism is considerably more radical than Cuvier's theory of earth history. Cuvier recognized that there was represented in the fossil record a series of distinct fauna. He (and others) took the breaks between these at face value, and inferred that they were divided in time by great catastrophes. This is far from a ridiculous view, and there are certainly large elements of it in today's orthodox scientific view. So while his view was generally harmonious with the description given in Genesis, he was far from a biblical literalist. The point I'm trying to make is that the creationist stand that the earth is ~10k years old and that the Noachian flood accounts for all the observed features of geology goes way beyond a simple disagreement with Darwin's theory. Creationists are so radical that even such a seemingly natural ally as Cuvier is to liberal for them. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew